Why aren't the right-wing talking heads denouncing emergency care as "socialist"?

[Lorax]

You still haven't answered the question I posed to you in post #35. Do you oppose universal access to emergency care regardless of ability to pay?

This should be an interesting one. I say he'll throw out the old line, "if you have the ability to pay" and such rot.

People like Batts are determined to shut out all but the top 1/2 of 1% of society, since he believes America should be an oligarchy.

This model always fails, just reference the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and just about every revolution when class warfare is the chief reason for societal breakdown.

I fear we are close to it here, and will only say that the privileged elites never learn their lessons.

[elganned]

This should be an interesting one. I say he'll throw out the old line, "if you have the ability to pay" and such rot.

People like Batts are determined to shut out all but the top 1/2 of 1% of society, since he believes America should be an oligarchy.

This model always fails, just reference the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and just about every revolution when class warfare is the chief reason for societal breakdown.

I fear we are close to it here, and will only say that the privileged elites never learn their lessons.

I have to disagree with lumping our revolution into the category of one predicated upon class warfare.

In essence, our revolution was more of an "rebellious adolescence", if you will, establishing our autonomy.

Other than slightly changing our structure of government [[i.e., combining the head of state with head of government roles in the presidency), we changed very little institutionally--our courts still functioned on English common law, we still practiced commerce in the same way, the manner and form of the electorate didn't change by much, our tax structure didn't alter, the people who ran things before the revolution still ran things afterwards and most folks were happy with it being that way.

In short, there was very little of the flavor of class warfare about it.

The French Revolution, on the other hand, was an entirely different animal...

[rb336]

Is anyone forced to buy insurance from a private company?

Is anyone restricted from engaging in purchasing said insurance [[illegal across state lines, limits on HSAs, etc)? By whom?

And no one will be forced to buy into medicare either. get your head out of your ass and stop buying H/L/B lies

[ccbatson]

Asked and answered repeatedly...everyone has access, even if you can't pay immediately...it is called a payment plan/credit, etc.

[gibran]

Of course it isn't, only if said services are control [[the means of production) by government is it socialistic. If Private interests were allowed/unfettered to open hospitals on every corner because it was profitable to do so and service was available to every individual [[for a price), that would be universal access under capitalism.

BTW, that is exactly what would happen under a free market health care system. Why? Opportunity to make a profit providing a good or service is the incentive to start and operate said businesses, if profitable, there would never be a shortage of providers.

Health South: Two words on your trip to fantasy land...do you not think we are not now paying higher costs now for healthcare profits...how do you think costs got so high..W e haven't leveled off costs in this free market circus, people are paying higher premiums to ensure the profitability of those who can't afford their bills...
and the heartlessness of this moral argument is really telling..

do you then support clean slates for those who have to declare bankruptcy to avoid foreclosure when they get their 200,000 hospital bill for their stroke care. ?

Guess in your world a person who can't afford health care [[fifty year old independent business person) is at fault for their own demise. Imagine that business man gets chest pain, goes to the hospital and is treated under these current conditions [[most likely he will be treated in ER), he can't work because during the operation to save his life he strokes, needs a year to recover, losing his life's savings [[because he never carried debt) he tries to arrange payments but is harassed constantly by aggressive bill collectors , loses his credit scores and now can't secure a loan, loses his house ..and is on "welfare [[that you want to destroy). How can we as a nation let these real scenarios continue to occur? You give me moral proof why we shouldn't reform this system and include health care for all people, instead of the empty rhetoric of "I got mine" .

[Lorax]

You word it so that it sounds like someone is "owed" this, but my short answer is yes.

There are a lot of things in life that we need to pay for, which are necessary to survive: food, clothing and shelter come to mind. Utilities and transportation come up there as well.

I failed to see the push for free food for all?

Free clothing for all?

Free heat/AC?

Free cars?

Free homes?

So why should health care be any different?

I'm also at a loss as to why people feel that the federal government, an entity that has not had a stellar record of running anything efficiently itself [[see here) , can run a sustainable health care program any better that the health insurance industry?

Unfortunately your premises are again, flawed.

Since when has health care become a monetary issue?

Throughout our history it's been a moral one, a morality that those, especially the Evangelicals and other politically charged religious groups have lost.

If someone is sick, and presumably contagious in many cases, what makes the rich and privileged think this won't effect them? How about their children in school, when parents of poor children start infecting their little darlings?

Your list of freebies sounds great! Where do I sign up?

Energy, health care, public transportation, free education through college level, are all things that would better educate, keep healthy, and provide a level playing field for all to achieve, and contribute to our society. Things, which by the way, are largely provided in European nations.

But that flies in the face of all things Republican, since their MO is to segregate the rich from the poor, keep from paying for society at large, and defund any and all programs that keep us civilized, including the FDA, EPA, OSHA, the SEC, and any government agency that may impede their beloved corporations from making a buck. They, by nature, are an exclusive, elite, selfish party of individuals out only for themselves, and have proven it time and again.

I suppose if you saw someone on the street in Chicago in January without a coat, and obviously freezing to death, you'd keep walking, rather than running into a store and buying them one? Sounds about right.

It's only become a monetary issue since creeping fascism worked it's way into our system.

We were closer to universal health care when Harry Truman was president. Universality in health care was defeated by one vote during his administration.

Your premise that the government can't run anything well is also wrong, since Medicare and Social Security have been pouplar, well run programs for decades. They only encounter economic problems when Rethuglicans love raiding the trusts for other projects, thinking they will pass off the funding to future generations, since they want theirs now.

Rethuglicans can't let a trust sit there, full of cash, and not want to tap into it. It's just in their greedy, grubby nature.

Are both poltiical parties awash in lobbying money, yes, of course. Neither party will ever be able to effect positive change in how we run government when it's owend by a handful of powerful, wealthy corporations.

The anger and vitriol needs to be directed at corporations for their stranglehold on our politic.

Until that happens, it's business as usual, until the greed and corruption collapses the system entirely, which we had a taste of in recent months.

[elganned]

Asked and answered repeatedly...everyone has access, even if you can't pay immediately...it is called a payment plan/credit, etc.

So you're in favor of the current way things are done.

Let's pose a hypothetical question, then, that speaks directly to your "selfishness is good" and "personal liberty above all" mantras:
Should hospitals and/or doctors be allowed to refuse emergency treatment to anyone on the grounds that they will not be able to pay for it? [[This seems to be the position taken by MCP, though he hasn't confirmed it.)

[oladub]

[quote=elganned;62137]
Should hospitals and/or doctors be allowed to refuse emergency treatment to anyone on the grounds that they will not be able to pay for it? quote]

elgannad, If I can butt in-
States have broad latitude under the 10th Amendment. They can, for instance, have single payer health care. States can also require their own hospitals to provide free medical care but only to the point that they go bankrupt. Hospitals often are able to bill the cost of unfunded mandates to paying patients. Those that aren't able to go our of business. Of course, if the State funded their own mandates, that would not be a problem. Most states have balanced budget requirements so they in turn have to cut costs elsewhere or raise taxes to pay for such things. Such matters are up to state voters or their elected state representatives.

[ccbatson]

How could a Physician be able to determine whether a person would ever be able to pay for services rendered?

[elganned]

How could a Physician be able to determine whether a person would ever be able to pay for services rendered?

Point taken, though under the "trade service" model the physician in question would have the latitude to refuse service at will, as does a plumber or landscaper. If a plumber or landscaper were to simply say, "No, I don't want to do this job," no one thinks is not within their rights to do so. Presumably the same could be said of a physician or hospital.

But let's follow your scenario for a moment and interject an external criterion for judgement. Let's rephrase the question so:

Should hospitals and/or doctors be allowed to refuse emergency treatment to anyone on the grounds that they do not have insurance and therefore in the judgement of the service provider may not be able to pay for it?

[elganned]

elgannad, If I can butt in-

Please do. The more, the merrier.

States have broad latitude under the 10th Amendment. They can, for instance, have single payer health care. States can also require their own hospitals to provide free medical care but only to the point that they go bankrupt. Hospitals often are able to bill the cost of unfunded mandates to paying patients. Those that aren't able to go our of business. Of course, if the State funded their own mandates, that would not be a problem. Most states have balanced budget requirements so they in turn have to cut costs elsewhere or raise taxes to pay for such things. Such matters are up to state voters or their elected state representatives.

[[bold added)
So are you saying that such transfer of expense from those who cannot pay to those who can pay is allowable for states but not for the federal government?
And under your definition, is this not still socialism? State government is still government, mandating and/or controlling production. Or is your definition only applicable to federal government, not state government?
Or are you still adhering to the definition of socialism merely to be the ownership of means of production, not the broader definition of control of the means of production?

[ccbatson]

I have never seen a Physician confronted with a patient in need of service turn them away. I do know of some practices that will only accept private pay patients up front, but that would include accepting someone willing to pay under some terms other than cash [[credit card, other).

[oladub]

So are you saying that such transfer of expense from those who cannot pay to those who can pay is allowable for states but not for the federal government?
And under your definition, is this not still socialism? State government is still government, mandating and/or controlling production. Or is your definition only applicable to federal government, not state government?
Or are you still adhering to the definition of socialism merely to be the ownership of means of production, not the broader definition of control of the means of production?

I am saying that a large percentage of things the federal government does are not permitted by the federal government according to the 10th Amendment. Both parties ignore it. However, the 10th Amendment gives broad latitute for what the States and people may do. What's stopping states from having their own single payer health care plans? One advantage of strictly following the Constitution is that we wouldn't be having a collapsing dollar, illegal wars, banker's bailouts, and the like at the federal level but we can still run public schools, single payer health plans, hire police, and do other 'socialist' things at the local and state levels where they can be better managed.

I define socialism to mean the ownership of the means of production. Others define it differently. Controlling the means of production can mean everything from some government regulations to economic fascism. There are shades of grey in all these definitions too.

[Danny]

Socialism here, Socialism now, Socialism forever

Obama, four more years.

[Danny]

The Pre-federative Socialist Communist United States of America is here folks. You all voted for your 1st premier Barack Obama. HAIL OBAMA! four years of Pre-Soviet ideology of reforming health care, education and reducing private ownership and state control and national security suveillance of all media.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

Yes we can, for Neda Soltani's sake

[ccbatson]

I can respect an honest socialist more than a deceptive one [[Obama)

[Lorax]

I have never seen a Physician confronted with a patient in need of service turn them away. I do know of some practices that will only accept private pay patients up front, but that would include accepting someone willing to pay under some terms other than cash [[credit card, other).

How about dying, dragging their feet, ragged clothes, etc. Would they ask for a credit card up front? Probably so. Doctors are no better than a CEO, and fancy themselves as such.

[elganned]

I have never seen a Physician confronted with a patient in need of service turn them away. I do know of some practices that will only accept private pay patients up front, but that would include accepting someone willing to pay under some terms other than cash [[credit card, other).

The question was not whether you have personally witnessed or heard of such behavior. It was whether in principle such behavior is acceptable.

I have personally never witnessed an armed insurrection to overthrow the government, yet I oppose such an action on principle.

[rb336]

I can respect an honest socialist more than a deceptive one [[Obama)

you mean you can respect an actual socialist, but you can't respect anyone center-right [[which Obama clearly is)

why? because actual socialists, like you, see the world in only black and white, and, like you, allow dogma, rather than a pragmatic examination of the facts and solutions, dictate their thoughts

[Danny]

Medicaid is party socialist and it's working for those who can't afford HMOs and PPOs. A little government health care won't hurt a bit. Every one in America must be covered for health care. This nation should not leave a sick loved one behind. It doesn't matter what the cost would be. Senator Ted Kennedy, Hillary R. Clinton, filmmaker Michael Moore and your 'Premier' of the 'Pre-federative Democratic Socialist Communist United States of Amerika' Barack Obama is trying smarter to ensure UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE system to every last Americans. People still have the right to choose their own health care system rather is private or government. Give the government a chance to be in healh care system and see what it could do to make you feel better.

Health care should be a birthright and free and not a earning privilege.

[elganned]

The Pre-federative Socialist Communist United States of America is here folks. You all voted for your 1st premier Barack Obama. HAIL OBAMA! four years of Pre-Soviet ideology of reforming health care, education and reducing private ownership and state control and national security suveillance of all media.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

Yes we can, for Neda Soltani's sake

*shrug* Like the old saying says: "If what you're doing isn't working, do something else."

[rb336]

Medicaid is party socialist and it's working for those who can't afford HMOs and PPOs. A little government health care won't hurt a bit. Every one in America must be covered for health care. This nation should not leave a sick loved one behind. It doesn't matter what the cost would be. Senator Ted Kennedy, Hillary R. Clinton, filmmaker Michael Moore and your 'Premier' of the 'Pre-federative Democratic Socialist Communist United States of Amerika' Barack Obama is trying smarter to ensure UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE system to every last Americans. People still have the right to choose their own health care system rather is private or government. Give the government a chance to be in healh care system and see what it could do to make you feel better.

Health care should be a birthright and free and not a earning privilege.

you see, if the wing nuts were so sure the public plan would be a disaster, they'd let the dems have it, as that disaster could resurect the movement. as it is, it has only made the tiny fraction of nuts left in the rep part get louder. What they are really worried about is that the public option will succeed, and their insurance money will dry up